It has become depressingly common to read unrelenting attacks on free speech in the Washington Post and other newspapers. The anti-free speech movement has been embraced by Democratic leaders, including President Joe Biden, as well as academics who now claim “China was right” on censorship. However, a Time magazine column by national correspondent Charlotte Alter was still shocking in how mainstream anti-free speech views have become. Alter denounces free speech as basically a white man’s “obsession.”
What is most striking about the column is Alter’s apparent confusion over why anyone like Musk would even care about the free speech of others. She suggests that Musk is actually immoral for spending money to restore free speech rather than on social welfare or justice issues.
She suggests that supporting free speech is some disgusting extravagance like buying Fabergé eggs.
“Why does Musk care so much about this? Why would a guy who has pushed the boundaries of electric-vehicle manufacturing and plumbed the limits of commercial space flight care about who can say what on Twitter?”
The answer, not surprisingly, is about race and privilege. Alter cites Jason Goldman, who was an early figure shaping the Twitter censorship policies before he joined the Obama administration. Goldman declared, “free speech has become an obsession of the mostly white, male members of the tech elite” who “would rather go back to the way things were.”
Alter also cites professor of communication at Stanford University Fred Turner who explains that free speech is just “a dominant obsession with the most elite… [and] seems to be much more of an obsession among men.”
In arguing in favor of censorship, Alter engages in a heavy use of historical revisionism, claiming that
“‘free speech’ in the 21st century means something very different than it did in the 18th, when the Founders enshrined it in the Constitution. The right to say what you want without being imprisoned is not the same as the right to broadcast disinformation to millions of people on a corporate platform. This nuance seems to be lost on some techno-wizards who see any restriction as the enemy of innovation.”
It is also lost on me.
Censorship has always been based on the notion that the underlying speech was false or harmful. Calling it “disinformation” does not materially change the motivation or the impact. What Alter calls a “Tech Bro obsession” was the obsession of the Framers.
Alter is confusing free speech values with the rationale for the First Amendment. For years, anti-free-speech figures have dismissed free speech objections to social media censorship by stressing that the First Amendment applies only to the government, not private companies. The distinction was always a dishonest effort to evade the implications of speech controls, whether implemented by the government or corporations.
The First Amendment was never the exclusive definition of free speech. Free speech is viewed by many of us as a human right; the First Amendment only deals with one source for limiting it. Free speech can be undermined by private corporations as well as government agencies. This threat is even greater when politicians openly use corporations to achieve indirectly what they cannot achieve directly.
Key free speech figures practiced what they preached in challenging friends and foes alike. After playing a critical role with our independence, Thomas Paine did nothing but irritate the Framers with his words, including John Adams, who called him a “crapulous mass.”
Yet, free speech was a defining value for the framers (despite Adams’ later attacks on the right). It was viewed as the very growth plate of democracy. As Benjamin Franklin stated in a letter on July 9, 1722: “Without Freedom of Thought, there can be no such thing as Wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without Freedom of Speech.”
The same anti-free speech voices were heard back then as citizens were told to fear free speech. It was viewed as a Siren’s call for tyranny. Franklin stated:
“In those wretched countries where a man cannot call his tongue his own, he can scarce call anything his own. Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech; a thing terrible to publick traytors.”
Yet, Alter assures readers that this is just due to a lack of knowledge by Musk and a misunderstanding of why censorship is a natural and good thing:
“Tech titans often have a different understanding of speech than the rest of the world because most trained as engineers, not as writers or readers, and a lack of a humanities education might make them less attuned to the social and political nuances of speech.”
It appears that Alter’s humanities education in college allows her to see “nuances” that escape the rest of us, including some of us who are not “trained as engineers.”
Just for the record, Alter has a degree in English Language and Literature/Letters (Harvard). Musk has his undergraduate degrees not in engineering but a Bachelor of Arts degree in physics and a Bachelor of Science degree in economics (both from the University of Pennsylvania). None of these degrees bestow any basis for claiming superior knowledge of constitutional law or human rights.
Indeed, no degree offers such determinative authority. Some of the most anti-free speech figures in our history have law degrees. A degree guarantees neither wisdom nor understanding. Many of the Framers were not legally trained but they had an innate sense and commitment to free speech.
James Madison warned us to be more on guard against such nuanced arguments: “There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
As Time, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and other media outlets align themselves with the anti-free speech movement, it is more important than ever for citizens to fight for this essential right. There is nothing nuanced in either this movement or its implications for this country.
Michael Ejercito says:
They expect to be entrenched in power forever by eliminating dissent.
Yes Michael, so does every fascist and we all know their ultimate end, Hitler, Mussolini, Ceausescu
I think that the difference between the founders and those aligned with Ms. Alter is a political philosophical one: Democracy vs Socialism. With Democracy, the concern of James Madison and Benjamin Franklin, free speech was something to be unfettered with the cost of some annoying distractions. But the folks aligned with Ms. Alter’s thinking, Socialism, speech needs to be carefully controlled and constrained despite their proclaimed desire for diversity – just not diversity of ideas and viewpoints. The socialist simply don’t have faith in the common man’s desire to want to participate in the “town square”. By restricting free speech one is most likely missing out on fresh and novel ideas. The political philosophical differences between Democracy and Socialism is best summed up by a quote from Alexis de Tocqueville: “Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom, socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.”
It’s really rather simple. She should not be permitted to write such an article and the Post should not be allowed to publish such. There, that’s the end of this obsession.
The 13th, 14th, 15th and 19th Amendments are unconstitutional, deleterious and “injurious” to the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
These amendments are not feasible or viable without matriculation affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, HHS, HUD, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.
Rights, freedoms, privileges and immunities of Americans must denied in order to provide these many multiple forms of welfare and affirmative action to minorities.
The Constitution may not be modified to deny rights to some, in order to provide different, special and superior rights to others.
Rights, freedoms, privileges and immunities are provided by the Constitution to undifferentiated “people” and “individuals.”
Various and arbitrary, undifferentiated “people” and “individuals” may not be denied their constitutional rights, freedoms, privileges and immunities.
The 13th, 14th, 15th and 19th Amendments are unconstitutional.
The American judicial branch must strike them down en masse per the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
You’re delusional.
“Economics is the prime mover.”
Hit the anti-free speech crowd in their wallets and purses.
Can’t do that. Money is considered free speech by conservatives and republicans including the Supreme Court.
Can you discuss where the lines on free speech are drawn when government employees or other employees say or do things that may or may not reflect negatively on their employers product or mission or brand. Without specified conditions for employment, can the employee simply claim free speech?
In both law and ethics, our customs ams traditions often put employers on the hook for the speech of their employees. As such, employers have broad legal and ethical discretion to tegulate the speech of their employees.
carl @2:53 “can the employee simply claim free speech?”
The employee can say what he or she wants. The employer also has the same right, the employer can say “you’re fired”. Free speech for all.
As of today I can say that the Disinformation Governance Board is a crapulous mass (to quote John Adams) that if it were to be strangled in its crib the country would be a better place.
The Left is demanding censorship because they are hemorrhaging voter support from all groups of Americans.
They now embrace censorship because their news media woke corporations are failing financially. Fox News is their enemy because CNN+, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC are bottom tier in market share. The way to rescue their business is to silence the competition. It is all about money, not disinformation since they are the biggest purveyors of disinformation
The Marist poll is a bad omen for Democrats
https://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/NPR_PBS-NewsHour_Marist-Poll_USA-NOS-and-Tables_202204271123.pdf
Latinos say they intend to vote for the GOP by 52-39%
Independent say they intend to vote for the GOP 45%-38%
NPR/Marist: In general, do you have a favorable or an unfavorable impression of Joe Biden?
White: 56% Unfavorable
Latino: 57% Unfavorable
NPR/Marist: Which Party would do a Better job handling:
The Economy:
Republicans 42% (+16)
Democrats 26%
Crime:
Republicans 41% (+21)
Democrats 20%
National Security:
Republicans 43% (+19)
Democrats 24%
Inflation:
Republicans 41% (+21)
Democrats 20%
“…amendments desired…as will not injure the constitution,…”
” And if there are amendments desired, of such a nature as will not injure the constitution, and they can be ingrafted so as to give satisfaction to the doubting part of our fellow citizens; the friends of the federal government will evince that spirit of deference and concession for which they have hitherto been distinguished.”
– James Madison, Proposed Amendments to the Constitution, June 8, 1789
___________________________________________________________
The 13th, 14th, 15th and 19th Amendments have not only “injured” the Constitution, they are killing America.
An invasion was facilitated by traitors in 1863 when they failed to enforce immigration law, the Naturalization Act of 1802, and deport illegal aliens.
Biden is committing treason (per the unconstitutional 14th Amendment) by “…adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort…” through negligent dereliction of his duty to protect and enforce the border.
The American population is in a “death spiral,” more Americans die than are born; the population is being imported of foreigners since the fraudulent and improper ratification of the 19th Amendment.
American women who assume the roles of men bear insufficient numbers of American children and foreigners are invading.
America is vanishing and dying.
_________________________
Memo from the Founders:
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
– Declaration of Independence, 1776
Once again Jonathan Turley demonstrates that he is no philosopher.
Why is he commending this writer for exercising her free speech rights?
Perhaps the sharper wits here will recognize the conundrum, but I suppose most commenters will not…
David B Benson, Professor Turley is not saying that Ms.Alter should not be allowed to speak, However, he is saying that she is calling for the censorship of others which is exactly what she is doing. If Professor Turley was trying to keep her opinions from being heard why would he quote her verbatim in his post so that you can decide for yourself about wether you agree with her opinions? On the other hand, unlike the Professor, Ms. Alter does not want your opinions to be heard at all because she might consider your opinions to be dangerous. Of course she pictures herself as the one true arbitrator. Do you really want Ms. Alter to determine what you are allowed to read or what you are allowed to hear? Stop and think about it.
Thinkitthough —. Try real hard now and Think It Through.
Thinkitthrough,
Turley censors racist and offensive rhetoric. He thinks it’s harmful for his blog even though it’s protected free speech.
Government CAN limit certain forms of speech if it poses harm. Content-based restrictions in a public forum require that there must be a compelling government interest in the restriction and the least restrictive means are employed to further that interest. Disinformation that undermines a government function such as an election process is a compelling government interest.
Any objections to what the government deems worthy of restricting or censoring will of course be able to be challenged in court as it should be.
“Why is he commending this writer for exercising her free speech rights?”
Huh?
You don’t see the distinction between your *political* right to say: 2+2+5 — and the fact that your answer is wrong?
One doesn’t need to be a philosopher to see that difference.
The First Amendment generally protects even hate or racist speech from government censorship. That’s why Turley admits he deletes (censors) it. However, speech advocating the use of force is unprotected when it incites or is likely to incite imminent lawless action. The Jan 6 insurrection/riot was incited by speech at the trump rally. Many claim it was protected free speech but that seems highly unlikely.
“Fighting words” which “by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace” are unprotected and may be punished or prohibited or even making jokes about bombs at a security checkpoint at airports or aircraft can get you arrested.
“ Section 35 of Title 18 provides civil and criminal felony provisions for the conveyance of false information regarding attempts or alleged attempts to destroy, damage, or disable aircraft, aircraft related facilities or motor vehicles and their related facilities. The statute is frequently referred to as the “bomb hoax” statute. The statute contains a civil penalty provision, 18 U.S.C. § 35(a), for nonmalicious false reports, and a felony provision, 18 U.S.C. § 35(b), which prescribes maximum penalties of $5,000 or five years imprisonment or both for conveying or imparting false information willfully and maliciously or with reckless disregard for the safety of human life. ”
https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1427-imparting-or-conveying-false-information-bomb-hoax-18-usc-35
Joking about bomb at an airport or aircraft is restricted. You can joke, but your joke is not protected under the First amendment.
The right to free speech is NOT absolute.
Too much wrong to comment on.
Pick one and discuss it if you can rebut it.
“The Jan 6 insurrection/riot was incited by speech at the trump rally.”
The protest began before Trump finished talking.
Women cannot be a little pregnant.
Freedom cannot be a little absolute.
Freedom is absolute; freedom that is not absolute is slavery to dictatorship, oppression and tyranny.
The freedom of speech is absolute.
If freedom of speech is not absolute, freedom of speech does not exist.
The right to private property is absolute.
Owners “claim and exercise” dominion over speech, etc., etc., related to their private property, understanding that superior statutory laws against bodily injury and property damage prevail.
The freedom of speech is absolute on public property until it constitutes a “disturbance of the peace” or a disturbance of the order on said pubic property.
“Hands up, don’t shoot” incited many riots, according to your definition.
Svelaz, you are correct in stating that free speech is NOT absolute. However, the censoring of those whose political opinions are not the same as yours does not for the most part meet the danger to society criterion. If I was in control would my banning of you from this blog be appropriate? You should be thankful that you live in a place where you can post your thoughts on a blog without fear of censorship and or incarceration. How can you somehow not think that censorship may one day used against you? This is not a my camp versus your camp issue. It’s an our camp issue. How can you defend people who say that China has it right when it comes to free speech? I am not saying that you are a bad person because of your opinion. I am only saying that you should look at the history of totalitarian nations concerning free speech and the pressure that they have put on their citizens to stay in line. If you lived in China there would be no blog like this for you to post on. Is this what you want? Then again, maybe you just don’t want to think about the things that you just don’t want to think about. My hope is that your smarter than that.
Thinkitthrough,
“How can you defend people who say that China has it right when it comes to free speech?”
I’m not defending people who say that, never stated that I support their opinion either. What I AM saying is that BECAUSE the freedom of speech in this country is not absolute it does mean there is reason to censor everything either. But as it is with everything else there ARE limits. China may censor a lot of speech and I don’t agree with that approach. HOWEVER one cannot ignore the fact that it is effective despite its heavy hand. That is not professing support for it as Turley deliberately characterized a government official as saying.
” If I was in control would my banning of you from this blog be appropriate?” It would be because it is YOUR blog. YOUR rules. I would have no say in it. Sure I would complain about it but that is all I would be able to do plus there would be other blogs I could go to besides yours. Right?
” However, the censoring of those whose political opinions are not the same as yours does not for the most part meet the danger to society criterion.” Mere political opinion is not enough to merit censorship. Fraudulent claims made under the pretext of “political opinion” are a different issue. Since Fraud is not completely under the protection of the first amendment. Like repeatedly claiming voter fraud after it has been proven not to be true.
It is a standard rhetorical tactic to point to very limited exceptions to a general rule and then inflate them to well beyond what they represent for the purpose of undermining the general rule.
To take but one example, under Brandenberg v Ohio, for incitement to violence to fall outside the scope of 1st amendment protection, three tests must be met.
1. The speaker must explicitly advocate violence;
2. Violence must be likely to flow from the speech; and
3. That violence must be imminent.
Trump’s speech on January 6 does not meet that tripartite test. In fact, it fails on the first part so you don’t even get to the others.
Maxine WATERS on the other hand actually DID incite violence….MORE than once. And CRICKETS from the propagandists in the MEDIA.
“The right to free speech is NOT absolute.”
Yes it is. Every individual right is absolute — in the context in which it applies.
Those engaged in fascism creep, and the outright destruction of rights, love to drop the context of a right’s application. The essence of their dishonest method is this: Pick a situation in which the exercise of a “right” violates someone’s else’s rights (e.g., defamation). Then announce with great fanfare: See. That right is not absolute.”
When you drop context, you can conclude anything or nothing.
Imagine writing a column stating that Black men don’t care about free speech. Imagine writing a column about women not caring if they cannot speak about certain issues. Imagine any column ever stating anything negative about Blacks, gays or women in it’s headline. It is only white men that can be labeled as anything pejorative and if they are Christian it is even easier.
Misinformation is defined as false or inaccurate information. False statements of fact about a public concern or public officials are protected from censorship under the First Amendment, unless the statement is made with knowledge or reckless disregard that it was a false statement made and/or made with intent to harm.
It is not safe to assume that false statements can be made on social media platforms without impunity. There can be civil liability imposed for defamatory statements, which are knowingly false statements of fact published without authorization that damage others’ reputations, libel if it’s written or slander if it’s spoken, and for fraud, which is a false statement of fact made with the intent to cause the hearer to alter their position.
Pushing claims of election fraud following the 2020 election made by various Trump government officials and news commentators on television and social media are being pursued for defamation by electronic voting machine manufacturers Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic. The fact that those claims have been deemed worthy of going to trial by the courts. Makes the fraud claims being made in social media platform a violation of their policies which allows them to censor it. Turley who is supposedly a very experienced law professor sure seems to miss important distinctions like these. Probably because he is not as objective as he claims to be.
No Svelaz – All speech is protected with few specific exceptions.
Speech about government is FULLY protected – except in time of war, where that speech provide the enemy information that harms the war.
Speech about people in government is nearly fully protected. The standard for defaming a person in government is so high it is never met.
Further defamation is civil not criminal.
There are some instances in which false speech is subject to civil consequences – such as lying in a contract.
But for the most part lies are protected speech.
Lastly a small subset of Threats might be criminally sanctionable.
The threat must be imminent, it must be specific, and the threatened action must itself be lawless.
You refeneced 2020 election statements regarding election equipment vendors – I suspect all those have died at this point.
As you said the statements had to be knowingly false.
None were. That is nearly impossible to proof, and election equipment makers are “public figures” – the standard of proof is very high.
Further no one would want a trial – the election both sides have serious problems with their cases that would be exposed in a trial.
Social media companies can censor as they please – consistent with the representations they made to get people to subscribe and TOS’s that are not coerced.
The fundimental problem with SM companies is that the courts have interpreted S230 protection wrong.
SM companies MAY censor the defamatory content of users. But when they act publicly – when they editorialize, when they flag content, they are acting as a speaker, editorial decisions are subject to defamation claims.
If you censor my speech and call it false – you are calling me a LIAR. Your only defense is TRUTH – so you damn well better be right.
But for S230 the NYPost would have a billion dollar defamation claim again FaceBook, Twiiter, etc.
Every person or company that was censored by social media FALSELY would and should have a large defamation claim.
This is no different that the defamation lawsuits by Nicholas Sandman against WaPo.
Whether you like it or not – it is not fraud remarks after the election that are fundimentally defamatory. Most of those involved are public figures with minimal protection for defamation.
The worst defamation was the censorship of TRUE claims prior to the election.
John B. Say,
“ No Svelaz – All speech is protected with few specific exceptions.”
Government CAN regulate time and place and manner. Remember free speech zones during the Bush years?
“ As you said the statements had to be knowingly false.
None were. That is nearly impossible to proof, and election equipment makers are “public figures” – the standard of proof is very high.”
Election equipment makers are not public officials. That is false. They are private companies.
There is enough evidence to go to court to show that statements they made regarding their equipment and fraud claims WERE knowingly false. That’s why Fox News is in trouble. Sidney Powell has already been sanctioned by the courts for making false claims in court.
“You referenced 2020 election statements regarding election equipment vendors – I suspect all those have died at this point”
They are still ongoing. A trial date has already been set for the first case.
you seem to envision censorship as a one way thing – The left gets to do it with impunity to purportedly stop “misinformation”
But has not liability for Defamation when they censor Truth.
John B Say, I agree with most of what you wrote. I would also note that Svelaz tried the rhetorical trick of generalising from the standard for libel to conclude that any false statements made intentionally or with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity are unprotected. That is incorrect. In Alvarez, the Supreme Court concluded that intentional false statements are protected by the 1st Amendment outside of a few narrow and specific categories.
Daniel, when false statements are made intentionally they are NOT protected speech. Lying to the FBI is a crime and so are intentional fraudulent claims. What about laws regarding perjury, and lying under oath?
Then why aren’t Clapper, Brennan and Hillary in Prison??
John B. Say.
“you seem to envision censorship as a one-way thing – The left gets to do it with impunity to purportedly stop “misinformation”
No, I do not. The right does the same thing, particularly when it involves the issue of CRT. It too seeks to censor it as misinformation or because it is deemed an outright lie. Censorship goes both ways and the right and the left practice it with various pre-textual excuses. Some are less nefarious than others.
Hand Up, Don’t Shoot was misinformation.
Harvard and the ivy league are ridiculous at this point. They coddle students and the result is an inability to reason or form cogent arguments.
WHEN WILL SPECIAL COUNSEL JOHN DURHAM END THE PURDURING OBAMA COUP D’ETAT IN AMERICA?
https://twitter.com/i/status/1520713806086696960
_______________________________________
“Obama Said On April 21 Social Media Censors ‘Don’t Go Far Enough’ – 6 Days Later Puppet Joe Biden Rolls Out ‘Ministry of Truth’”
“‘It is clear that Barack Obama is calling the shots and Joe Biden is just a puppet. On April 21, Barack Obama delivered a speech at Stanford University and blamed Big Tech for failing to stop the spread of ‘disinformation’ on their platforms. Obama said people are dying because of so-called misinformation about the Covid vaccines….’People like Putin…understand it’s not necessary for people to believe this information in order to weaken democratic institutions. You just have to flood a country’s public square with enough raw sewage. You just have to raise enough questions, spread enough dirt, plant enough conspiracy theorizing, that citizens no longer know what to believe,’ Obama said. ‘Once they lose trust in their leaders, mainstream media, in political institutions, in each other, the possibility of truth — the game’s won,’ Obama added. ‘These companies need to have some other North star other than just making money and increasing market share. Fix the problem that in part they helped create, but also to stand for something bigger,’ Obama said.'”
Six days later Joe Biden appointed radical Millennial Marxist Nina Jankowicz to lead the DHS’s ‘Ministry of Truth.’
– Cristina Laila
____________
The Obama Coup D’etat in America is the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious crime in American political history. The co-conspirators are:
Kevin Clinesmith, Bill Taylor, Eric Ciaramella, Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Andrew Weissmann,
James Comey, Christopher Wray, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Laycock, Kadzic, Sally Yates,
James Baker, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Priestap, Kortan, Campbell, Sir Richard Dearlove,
Christopher Steele, Simpson, Joseph Mifsud, Alexander Downer, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper,
Azra Turk, Kerry, Hillary, Huma, Mills, Brennan, Gina Haspel, Clapper, Lerner, Farkas, Power,
Lynch, Rice, Jarrett, Holder, Brazile, Sessions (patsy), Nadler, Schiff, Pelosi, Obama,
Joe Biden, James E. Boasberg, Emmet Sullivan, Gen. Milley, George Soros, John McCain,
Marc Elias, Igor Danchenko, Fiona Hill, Charles H. Dolan, Jake Sullivan, Strobe Talbot,
Cody Shear, Victoria Nuland, Ray “Red Hat” Epps, Don Berlin, Kathy Ruemmler, Rodney Joffe,
Paul Vixie, L. Jean Camp, Andrew Whitney et al.
Tulsi Gabbard 🌺
@TulsiGabbard
Biden is just a front man. Obama, April 21: social media censors “don’t go far enough,” so the government needs to step in to do the job. Six days later, Homeland Security rolls out the ‘Ministry of Truth’ (aka
Disinformation Governance Board).
https://twitter.com/i/status/1520713806086696960
OPINION :
When the Bill of Rights was composed, the authors of these Amendments did not believe that Congress nor the people would allow the establishment of bureaucracies, that create their own rules and regulations.
The Constitution clearly states that only Congress can make laws. Rules and regulations are unconstitutional.
Congress and the States, in their insanity has unconstitutionally delegated power to the innumerable unelected and unaccountable cabal of bureaucrats.
Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax ONLY for “…general Welfare…,” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual welfare, specific welfare, redistribution of wealth or charity. The same article provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY money, the “flow” of commerce, and land and naval Forces. Additionally, the 5th Amendment right to private property is not qualified by the Constitution and is, therefore, absolute, allowing Congress no power to claim or exercise dominion over private property, the sole exception being the power to “take” private property for public use.
Government exists, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to provide maximal freedom to individuals while it is severely limited and restricted to merely facilitating that maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of security and infrastructure.
The entire communistic American welfare state is unconstitutional including, but not limited to, matriculation affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, HHS, HUD, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.
The First Amendment does not guarantee the right to communicate one’s views at all times and places or in any manner that may be desired. If Twitter or Facebook bans someone permanently they still have the option of going to other available platforms.
If there is an alternative channel of communication for the desired speech, it may be a suitable alternative even if it is not a perfect substitute for the preferred forum that has been denied. Trump was upset because he got kicked out of the perfect media platform for his messaging. He wasn’t going to be satisfied with a less than perfect platform with millions of people who could follow him and have so much reach. But he stupidly continued to violate THEIR terms which ended up with a permanent ban. Trump has his own social media platform now and he has not posted more than one or two posts. That’s because his platform is not widespread and prevalent enough to have as much as an impact as Twitter does. Plus it sucks.
Restrictions of speech in a public forum are permissible if they are appropriately limited in time, place, and manner. Turley often neglects this as well. His characterization of free speech as a human right doesn’t acknowledge the fact that even human rights have limits. Rights are not absolute. They never have been. In this country freedom of religion is taken very seriously, but the right to practice it has its limits. Just because there is freedom to worship anything you want it doesn’t mean you can exercise every aspect that a religion demands. If a religion requires human sacrifice the government CAN prohibit the practice because murder is illegal. Navajo shamans were not allowed to use peyote because it is an illegal hallucinogen despite the fact that it was part of their religion.
Svelaz, you are going to love it when President Trump or DeSantis names a new head of the Bureau of Disinformation and Musk bans Liz Warren for her obvious lies.
Hullbobby,
So you would support an “anti-free speech” government entity that Turley claims is a bad idea?
If you think it’s a bad idea under the Biden administration why would it be a good idea under the Trump administration?
Musk can ban ANYONE who violates Twitter’s policies. Just as Trump did. That’s never going to change. If it IS proven that Sen. Warren violated their policies it’s perfectly within their rights to ban her.
Svelaz, you like to think you have a grasp of nuance and intellectual debate and yet you miss the point quite often. It is obvious that when I said “when Trump is president you are going to love the Misinformation Governance Board” that I did not mean that I would then like the Board, what I meant, and what 90% of the people reading it grasped, is that when Trump is president YOU will be one miserable little hypocritical person.
There is so much error in what Svelaz writes that his responses are useless. I caught the end of his statement. Did I remember wrong that Shamans could use peyote for religious services?
S. Meyer. You are correct. See 42 U.S.C. 1996a and b.(1). Svelaz is gratuitously permitted to publish his false misinformation on this site, while lecturing others on the law. If Twitter censors had seen his tweet, would they have censored it?
Lin, it was not false information. The employment division vs. smith decision was handed down in 1990. 42 U.S.C. was made into law in 1996. It also allows states to regulate it.
” Nothing in this section shall prohibit any Federal department or agency, in carrying out its statutory responsibilities and functions, from promulgating regulations establishing reasonable limitations on the use or ingestion of peyote prior to or during the performance of duties by sworn law enforcement officers or personnel directly involved in public transportation or any other safety-sensitive positions where the performance of such duties may be adversely affected by such use or ingestion. Such regulations shall be adopted only after consultation with representatives of traditional Indian religions for which the sacramental use of peyote is integral to their practice. Any regulation promulgated pursuant to this section shall be subject to the balancing test set forth in section 3 of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (Public Law 103–141; 42 U.S.C. 2000bb–1).”
Twitter wouldn’t be able to censor my post because it is not false information. Just outdated.
Svelaz: You claim you were “Just outdated.” Yes, by 26 years…..Furthermore, the Code’s provision that you cited is irrelevant to your statement about Navajo Indian use. NOTHING in the section that you quote refutes the provision I cited. Why don’t you quote the RELEVANT and applicable provision that has been in effect for 26 years, here it is for other readers/viewers:
“(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the use, possession, or transportation of peyote by an Indian for bona fide traditional ceremonial purposes in connection with the practice of a traditional Indian religion is lawful, and shall not be prohibited by the United States or any State. No Indian shall be penalized or discriminated against on the basis of such use, possession or transportation, including, but not limited to, denial of otherwise applicable benefits under public assistance programs.”
How convenient (and laughable) of you….claiming your false statement is not false because you were just “outdated.” Try that in Court.
Lin,
“You claim you were “Just outdated.” I wasn’t. The information was outdated. That doesn’t mean it was false either. The court did rule that the claim of using peyote due to their religion is not protected.
What I did point out when citing the section (4) is that it allowed for the states or any agency to regulate it. Not prohibit it. There is still a limitation imposed.
Svelaz: I’m sorry to be so curt with you, but I’d rather spend my time reading comments that inspire and compel others to think, consider and/or debate. Here, it took several of us, including John B. Say, S. Meyer, Daniel, and I, to keep you on track. Please understand that I can consider your OPINIONs–and you appear to be smart, -but erroneous information, presented as legally and factually authoritative, goes way beyond that parameter. Thanks
Lin, my posts have been factually correct. John B. Say has a few correct points but not all of them are. Some of his assertions are quite nonsensical given his ideology and extremely narrow reading of the law. That of course is his prerogative. nothing wrong with that.
S. Meyer is a whole other ball game given his penchant for putting words into people’s mouths and insulting others when he can’t properly rebut a point. That includes his ad hominems.
Everyone here has their opinions and everyone does post false info, and lies. personal attacks, or just silly wild conspiracy theories. Even outright racist posts. At least you read my opinions just as I assume you read everyone else’s with equal skepticism or bias.
Your comment on Peyote was wrong.
Daniel explained why you were wrong elsewhere: “I would also note that Svelaz tried the rhetorical trick of generalising from the standard for libel…”
Lin explained why you were wrong as well but made one mistake. You are not smart. An intelligent person learns from his mistakes. You don’t learn even after your errors are pointed out to you.
John Say has pointed out so many areas that you have been wrong about that it can make one’s head spin.
Anonymous persons point out your errors as well.
I have pointed out your errors multiple times in multiple ways. Nothing pierces your thick skull.
You are incorrigible. You don’t care about the truth or are dumber than anyone assumes.
SM
S. Meyer,
My comment about the employment division vs. Smith was not wrong. My post was about the court ruling and that hasn’t changed.
John B. Say has pointed out his OPINIONS not any facts supporting them. I did provide facts supporting my posts. I have yet to see you provide any substantive rebuttals to what I have posted. Insults and mockery are not arguments.
Its apparent that you don’t learn from your own mistakes far more than most. That is why you constantly use the same tired useless rhetoric. You can’t make an argument beyond insults and ad hominems.
Svelaz said: “Navajo shamans were not allowed to use peyote because it is an illegal hallucinogen despite the fact that it was part of their religion.”
Meyer asked: “Did I remember wrong that Shamans could use peyote for religious services?”
Various proofs showed I was correct.
Svelaz argued. The proof was provided. Svelaz continued to argue.
I wanted to know what the Navajo were doing today.
“A famed Navajo chief — former head of the Native American Church (and principally responsible for the legality of peyote for ceremonies in the US) — had come down expressly for the occasion: Emerson Jackson.”
“I wondered whether the little boy next to me would be taking the peyote as well ”
“Then suddenly the peyote was passed around. This seemed a surprisingly informal part of the ceremony: a big bowl of awful tasting squishy cactus, which each member dipped a hand into, to come up with a fistful of little soft nougats. We had to pass the bowl with our left hand, in a circular gesture, to our neighbor to the left.”
Sep. 7, 2009, 05:12 AM EDT | Updated Dec. 6, 2017
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/taking-peyote-in-a-navajo_b_254492
Dealing with Svelaz is a waste of time.
Women cannot be a little pregnant.
Freedom cannot be a little absolute.
Freedom is absolute; freedom that is not absolute is slavery to dictatorship, oppression and tyranny.
The freedom of speech is absolute.
If freedom of speech is not absolute, freedom of speech does not exist.
The right to private property is absolute.
Owners “claim and exercise” dominion over speech, etc., etc., related to their private property, understanding that superior statutory laws against bodily injury and property damage prevail.
The freedom of speech is absolute on public property until it constitutes a “disturbance of the peace” or a disturbance of the order on said pubic property.
Freedom of speech is not absolute, and disturbance of the peace is not the only exception on public property.
When you set your TOS – you are obligated to keep it consistent with the prior represenations that caused people to select your service in the first place.
It is to early to know exactly what is going on – but since Twitter accepted Musks offer – hundreds of thousands of people are now following various conservatives. And 10’s of thousands have ceased to follow various lefties.
It is not currently know if that is the result of new subscribers and lefties fleeing. It also could be an artifact of ending shadow banning as an example.
Regardless, it is a CLEAR sign that Twitter FAILED to do its fiduciary duty to shareholders.
There STILL could be massive shareholder lawsuits against Twitter. And Twitter lawsuits could trigger lawsuits elsewhere.
Twitter under Musk as a completely private company – could do much of what you claim. Musk is permitted to run twitter to his own finanical detriment.
But as a public company Twitters fist priority is its shareholders.
If its censorship has harmed shareholder value – which is self evident and the reason Musk is buying it, then those who made decisions that harmed shareholders are financially liable.
I would note – this is pretty much black letter corporate law.
Disney is facing a similar problem. Their brand is children’s entertainment – if their shares drop as a result of revelations regarding their woke agenda – they are LIABLE.
John: “But as a public company Twitters first priority is its shareholders.”
+++
Much more than a priority to shareholders. They have a legal fiduciary duty to shareholders that Twitter, Disney and Netflix may have forgotten.
I suspect that when Musk reminded the Twitter board of its fiduciary liabilities they discovered new and persuasive arguments for selling to him. I would have…fast.
“Regardless, it is a CLEAR sign that Twitter FAILED to do its fiduciary duty to shareholders.”
No, it didn’t. Shareholders can show their displeasure by selling their shares if the company isn’t doing what they expect. That hasn’t happened. Censoring posts that have violated the TOS is not a failure of their fiduciary duty. I assume that the majority of shareholders who buy shares of the company AGREE with its current operation since we haven’t seen an exodus of shareholders selling off stock.
Musk buying it only raised the price of shares so there would be no reason to start bailing out. Shareholders are not going to stop buying shares as they didn’t stop before Musk.
Censorship was not harming shareholder value. Musk bought it because HE didn’t agree with how Twitter managed it’s platform.
You are very confused. If Musk were not permitted to buy Twitter, the price would have fallen to the floor. Twitter loses money. Its P/E is greater than -175. The shareholders probably could have sued the board and won if they didn’t accept Musk’s offer.
SM
S. Meyer,
“You are very confused. If Musk were not permitted to buy Twitter, the price would have fallen to the floor.” No, it wouldn’t because Twitter was not in decline or in danger of losing value. Any loss of value due to Musk not buying Twitter would have only been temporary. It was never a certainty that musk was going to buy Twitter. It was all speculation until it was confirmed.
Your making an assumption and portraying it as a certainty. When you hedge by using “probably” and “could have” you are admitting you don’t know.
Do you know what P/E means? How long can a company continue to lose money? Twitter’s days were numbered unless there were massive changes.
You talk despite an almost total lack of knowledge. Your lack of critical thinking skills compounds the horror of that.
SM
You are extremely muddled regarding the law.
Private censorship is generally permissible – BUT you can not defame people by censoring them. Censorship itself is speech.
Next private censorship in a publicly held company must create value – not diminish it. Otherwise you are financially responsible.
The rules you discuss regarding time and place – are rules for Government censorship.
You are correct that rights are not absolute. But you can not seem to grasp that they ARE near absolute.
That is the entire purpose of a right. No rights exist if there are many ways to infringe.
John B. Say,
” Censorship itself is speech.”
No, it’s not. Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information.
“BUT you can not defame people by censoring them.”
Incorrect. Censorship is not an act of defamation. Defamation involves the action of damaging the good reputation of someone thru slander or libel.
“Next private censorship in a publicly held company must create value – not diminish it. Otherwise, you are financially responsible.”
Nope, because a company can do whatever it wants regarding what it considers as value. If it ends up being financially ruinous or unprofitable it is still their choice to make. They are still bound by their adopted policies.
“The rules you discuss regarding time and place – are rules for Government censorship.”
ti’s not censorship because they don’t forbid speech. They regulate where and when it can be exercised. It doesn’t stop the expression of speech. The constitution only prohibits the government from censoring speech that is protected even if it is offensive or critical.
“You are correct that rights are not absolute. But you can not seem to grasp that they ARE near absolute.”
John that is a distinction without a difference. You say they DO have some limits albeit few, I say they are limits just not a few as you assert. Speech is constantly evolving and changing and limits change with it. Like the limit on joking about bombs in airports or aircraft. It’s a felony criminal charge to joke about it. It wasn’t before 9/11. Even joking about bomb threats in school is not protected speech.
“A student who made comments about bombing his school and setting fire to it uttered true threats, a Washington state appeals court ruled. The appeals court rejected the student’s argument that the statements were just jests that did not rise to the level of threats.”
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/post/575/high-school-student-loses-first-amendment-claim-that-he-was-joking-about-bomb-threat
“That is the entire purpose of a right. No rights exist if there are many ways to infringe.”
Rights don’t exist so you can do anything you please. Rights, all rights have their limits and often they are very limited or not as much depending on what the actions behind the claims are.
Justice O’Conner later admitted she got the Peyote decision wrong.
Regardless of what Justice O’Conner admitted. The conservatives in the court all agreed the use of peyote was not protected under the first amendment’s protections on religious liberty. The justices did not agree that the Native Americans did not have religious liberty protections for using peyote as their religion required. Therefore they did show that even religious liberty has its limits.
As an engineer, I am surprised to discover that I am not trained to read or write. In this, Charlotte Alter displays a deeply prejudiced view of engineers. Her prejudice even reaches the point where she believes that engineers are “less attuned to the social and political nuances of speech.” It is only one small step to require that engineers would be censored on the basis of our career choices. That is a brave new world that I hope to never see.
Paul, the English department has chosen to take over the university without knowing how to build anything. Their lack of scientific understanding leads to a logic that misunderstands how science advances. They can write, but they have difficulty thinking.
Engineer Bill, do you run the Atchison, Topeka and the Santa Fe?
Speaking of engineers…
One just need look at Russia and China to see what happens to a speech-regulated populace.
Utopia is always built on the destruction of civil liberties, beginning with free speech. The irony is that these “news” organizations are the first to feel Utopia’s blade lopping off their existence.
Charlotte Alter tells us that free speech is a white man thing. By inference she is telling us that black men don’t care if their speech is limited. She might go back in time to an era where Martin Luther King Jr. was been prohibited from speaking. If Martin were here today would he agree that free speech is only an obsession of the white man. Martin spent his life in defense of free speech for the black man. I for one am thankful for his obsession with free speech. Ms. Alters lack of historical knowledge glaringly stands out and obviously displays her as a fool writing in a newspaper designed for fools.